maracas

"The future of any democracy there relies on the establishment of a secular state with equal rights of Jews and Arabs."

But with a few exceptions that is already there. In Israel the Arabs are equal, they have a right to vote, members of Parliament and a Cabinet Minister, they graduate from Israeli Universities, they even have been seen wearing head scarves when they receive their PhD. The Muslim Arabs may enter the IDF or have the right to refuse, as have some Jews. The Druze and I believe Christian Arabs have compulsory military service, that is their communities choice.

What more do you want from Israel? What countries do better? As a third generation Jewish Australian and an agnostic I find certain laws forced on me here are basically Christian and an annoyance, but nowhere is perfect. Where else in the ME are Jews and Christians given the same rights and opportunities as the Muslims? No criticism of Islam intended but what ME administrations have ever shown our idea of democracy other than Israel?

You will probably bring up the law of return, all the democracies have restricted immigration and preferential treatment, remember, the popularity of that view saved a government from losing an election in this country. Do you expect Israel to maintain higher standards than your own country, if so why?

According to Israeli writer Uri Avnery, in regards to Barak's offer at Camp David:

- The claim of Barak offering Arafat 92% of the West Bank "does not include the territories of East Jerusalem ... nor the Jordan valley ... Altogether, Palestinians believed that the real proposed annexation was closer to 20 per cent"

- "The settlement blocs that Barak wanted to annex to Israel are like daggers tearing into the flesh of the future Palestinian state, cutting it up into what could easily be turned into disconnected enclaves"

- The territory swaps proposed by Barak would be on a 9 to 1 balance in Israel's favour

- "The Arab parts of East Jerusalem with Barak agreed to transfer to Palestinian sovereignty were outlying suburbs while the central Arab neighbourhoods were accorded only 'functional authority' under Israeli autonomy"

- "Palestinians were granted only 'guardianship' over the compounds of the holy mosques, which meant that Israel would retain sovereignty

- Ehud Barak's offer, if accepted, would be the final settlment. Thus, no further concessions to Palestinian desires would be allowed thereafter.

In the same article, Uri Avnery says that Arafat

- agreed to change the Green Line via land swaps

- accepted the concept of settlement blocs

- ceded the Jewish neighbourhoods built on Arab land in East Jerusalem

- was willing to cede the Wailing Wall and the Jewish Quarter of the Jerusalem Old City, which were part of Arab land prior to 1967

- indicated readiness to reach a compromise on the Palestinian Arab refugee Right Of Return

http://gush-shalom.org/archives/barak.html

Journalist Robert Wright writes that Barak's Camp David offer would have prevented the Palestinians from having a military, sovereignty over its air space or freedom of movement on the ground, and that "Israel would be entitled to declare emergencies during which Palestinians couldn't cross the road".

www.slate.com/?id=2064500

In his book "Freedom Next Time", journalist John Pilger writes Barak's offer would have meant that Palestine "would have no direct acces to its international borders" and thousands of Israeli military orders would override Palestinian legislation.

Many commentators here seem to regard this forum as some sort of verbal ping-pong...pick a side and try to score points...why don't we try being constructive? After all, millions of people, on both sides of the conflict, are suffering, not least of which are the impoverished Palestinian Arabs.

Please consider this:

UNHCR has managed to help 50 million refugees to resettle their lives (STOP being refugees) since World War 2. These include millions of Jewish refugees from Europe and 850,000 from Arab lands (not 650,000 as Bren Carlill states - see UN document “Trends and Characteristics of International Migration since 1950 – Refugee Movements and Population Transfers” (UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs, Demographic Study No. 64 ST/ESA/Ser. A/64)).

Today, with a staff of around 6,300 people in more than 110 countries UNHCR continues to help 32.9 million refugees, with a budget of $1,668m pa ($50 per refugee per annum).

In the meantime, UNRWA, the special body exclusively for Palestinian refugees, with its unique definition of "refugee", is by far the largest UN operation in the Middle East, with over 28,000 staff, and a budget of $480m pa ($110 per refugee per annum). Yet even with an additional $7.4 billion of foreign aid pledged for 2008-2010 ($550 per refugee per annum), making a total of 13.2 times the aid of all other refugees in the world, UNRWA has managed to take 600,000 refugees in 1948, add all their descendents, and today has 4.5 million "refugees" on its registers.

Is this entirely Israel's fault?
Are the Arab nations really interested in helping their Palestinian brothers to build another Arab nation?
...or are they more interested in destroying the only Jewish one?

Interesting attempt at a constructive post

Maracas/mac/fungus

claims that UN General Assembly Resolution 194 passed in 1948 gives the Palestinians a “Right of Return” to Israel. This is yet another egregious example of the misinformation and outright lies that many freely peddle and unfortunately many more are either too gullible or too bigoted to question. In fact 194 was passed with the future security of Israel firmly in mind.

Let us quickly revise some of the Israeli security concerns. They started the day the state of Israel was formed. The first occurred after Israel, Egypt, and Transjordan signed a cease-fire in March 1949 and the admission of the state of Israel to the United Nations two months later on 11 May 1949. While Israeli soldiers had succeeded in occupying twenty percent more of British Mandated Palestine than the United Nations 1947 partition, Israel insisted on a comprehensive peace treaty with the Arab states.

The Arab states refused and so Israel refused to withdraw its position, and would not permit Arab refugees to return to their homes in Israel. For their part the Arab states refused diplomatic recognition of Israel

To understand why, in the coming decades, Israel, or indeed any member of the United Nations, might not give a fig what UNGA Resolutions say, we need to go back to the 1940s. Of course, notions of international law and particularly UN Resolutions pepper Antony Loewenstein’s ‘Israel Question.’ Ah yes, the UN General Assembly. In this phase of U.S. involvement in the Palestinian refugee issue the central institutional authority was the United Nations. In fact, in the early years the U.S. tried to be as even-handed, and even not involved, in the refugee issue.

The armistice agreement following the 1948 War based on UN Resolutions 194 set the parameters for the next 18 years. However 194 did not resolve issues of water-sharing among the parties nor the return of the refugees. The U.S., Britain and France, worried about their future influence and strategic interests in the region, sought to limit further conflict through a Tripartate Agreement that limited the sales of arms to either side

In this phase there was no official recognition of the unique identity of the Palestinians, even by the Arab world itself.

There was not even a Security Council Resolution. General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948 called upon the Arab states and Israel to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations either directly, or with the help of the Palestine Conciliation Commission established by this resolution.

The emphasized words demonstrate that the UN was not satisfied that the cease-fire "borders" were sufficient, and that some of the refugees would have to be resettled around the world like refugees in any conflict. Thus claims that Resolution 194 provides a universal "right of return" are wrong. The refugee issue was but one of many to be negotiated.

The Arabs, however, started a pattern that continued to thwart them for decades. They simply refused to compromise or negotiate.

As Hanan Ashrawi so tragically admitted:

"the rejection of the 1947 UN partition plan as “with the benefit of immaculate hindsight the worst plunder we made was not accepting the 1947 UN petition."

The Resolution was never a legal resolution bestowing “rights” on anybody.

Putting aside the fact that 194 does not mention the word “right,” or “Palestinians,” unlike Chapter 6 and 7 Resolutions of the Security Council, Chapter 4 Resolutions of the UN General Assembly were never designed to have the force of law.

The UNGA is empowered to refer to the Security Council, matters it thinks require a judicial decision; no such referral was ever made regarding 194. And even if it were, among other criticisms, the Israelis have always maintained that the refugees do not want “to live in peace with their neighbours.” And just quietly, I defy anybody to provide evidence to the contrary!

However, neither the Arab states nor Arab lobby/political groups thought that the refugees were a distinct entity to bargain on behalf of either.

One of the top handful of misdirections taken by the Palestinians are those western advocates who have expended so much puff and wind telling the refugees they have a “right of return.”

http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/arab-rejectionism-of-un-…